DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 28, 2026, has been entered.
3. Therefore, Claims 12 and 14-32 are pending in this office action.
4. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action issued on February 2, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted April 28, 2026, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (EP 3121870 A1).
With regard to Claim 25, Jang et al. disclose in Figures 1-6, a rechargeable battery pack comprising: at least two pouch cells (21, 22) stacked on top of one another, each of the pouch cells (21, 22) being enclosed in a metal foil (paragraph 0010); the metal foils of the pouch cells (21, 22) being electrically insulated from one another and electrical contact being made with each of the metal foils (paragraphs 0004-0005, 0014-0030, 0045), the metal foils of pouch cells (21, 22) are spaced apart from one another in the stacking direction by a gap (paragraphs 0040-0043; See Figures), and a dielectric, called a rupture switch (90-1), is located in the gap (paragraph 0088).
With regard to Claims 26-27, Jang et al. disclose in Figure 6, wherein the dielectric (90-1) is a plastic, for example, a flame resistant insulating material having plasticity (paragraph 0088) and wherein the dielectric (90-1) is a flat plat between two of the at least two pouch cells (21, 22) (paragraphs 0082-0085).
With regard to Claim 28, the recitation, “an electric handheld power tool”, is recited in the preamble, therefore the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
With regard to Claim 29, Jang et al. disclose in Figures 3-5, wherein the at least two pouch cells (21, 22) comprise exactly two pouch cells (21, 22) (paragraph 0014).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
11. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
12. Claims 12, 14-24 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (EP 3121870 A1) in view of Ghantous et al. (US 2016/0116548 A1).
With regard to Claim 12, Jang et al. disclose in Figures 1-6, a rechargeable battery pack comprising: at least two pouch cells (21, 22) stacked on top of one another, each of the pouch cells (21, 22) being enclosed in a metal foil (paragraph 0010); the metal foils of the pouch cells (21, 22) being electrically insulated from one another and electrical contact being made with each of the metal foils (paragraphs 0004-0005, 0014-0030, 0045). Jang et al. do not specifically disclose the purpose of measuring a capacitor capacitance formed by the metal foils; and a capacitance measuring circuit electrically connected to the metal foils.
Ghantous et al. disclose in Figures 5, 6C and 6D, a battery cell, including a copper film/foil on the external surface (paragraph 0083), and inductive coils or capacitive plates configured relative to the surface of the battery to acquire data (measuring), through the coils/plates and electronic circuitry, the change in inductive/capacitive coupling between one or more coils/plates and the surface of the battery (paragraph 0080). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill I the art to modify the rechargeable battery pack of Jang et al. to include a capacitance measuring circuit electrically connected to the metal foils, because Ghantous et al. teach that this configuration is excellent for measuring the displacement of the surface of the battery, and consequently, swelling (paragraph 0080).
The recitation, "for the purpose of measuring a capacitor capacitance formed by the metal foils", is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 14, Jang et al. disclose in Figures 1-6, a battery management system, called a battery controller (80) (paragraph 0028), designed to and fully capable of interrupting or reducing a current draw from the rechargeable battery pack when a value of the capacitor capacitance of Ghantous et al. changes by a predefined threshold value (paragraphs 0091 0113).
The recitation, "designed to interrupt or reduce a current draw from the rechargeable battery pack when a value of the capacitor capacitance changes by a predefined threshold value", is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 15, Jang et al. disclose in Figure 9, a filter circuit, called a relay coil unit (100), configured to filter out a change in the capacitor capacitance induced by impact or vibration (paragraphs 0073-0079).
The recitation, "configured to filter out a change in the capacitor capacitance induced by impact or vibration", is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 16, Jang et al. disclose in Figure 9, a filter circuit, called a relay coil unit (100), configured to filter out a change in the capacitor capacitance induced by impact or vibration (paragraphs 0073-0079).
The recitation, "configured to filter out a change in the capacitor capacitance induced by impact or vibration", is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 17, Jang et al. disclose in Figures 3-5, wherein the metal foils of pouch cells (21, 22) are spaced apart from one another in the stacking direction by an air gap (paragraphs 0040-0043; See Figures).
With regard to Claim 18, Jang et al. disclose in Figure 6, a dielectric, called a rupture switch (90-1), introduced in the air gap (paragraph 0088).
With regard to Claim 19, Jang et al. disclose in Figure 6, wherein the dielectric (90-1) is a plastic, for example, a flame resistant insulating material having plasticity (paragraph 0088).
With regard to Claims 20-21, Jang et al. disclose wherein the metal foils of the pouch cells (21, 22) are each a metal composite foil; and, wherein the metal foils are each an aluminum composite foil (paragraph 0010).
With regard to Claim 22, Jang et al. disclose wherein the dielectric (90-1) is part of at least one of the metal composite foils of the pouch cells (21, 22) since the dielectric is attached to the outside of the pouch cells (21, 22) (paragraphs 0083-0085, 0089).
With regard to Claim 23, Ghantous et al. disclose a method for measuring the swelling of a pouch cell of a rechargeable battery pack noted above, the method comprising evaluating a change in the capacitor capacitance formed between the metal foils of the pouch cells as a measure of the swelling of the pouch cell (paragraphs 0069-0080).
With regard to Claim 24, Ghantous et al. disclose interrupting or reducing a current draw from the rechargeable battery pack when the value of the capacitor capacitance changes by a predefined threshold value (paragraphs 0069-0080).
With regard to Claim 30, Jang et al. disclose in Figures 1-6, a method for measuring the swelling of a pouch cell of a rechargeable battery pack (20), the rechargeable battery pack (20) comprising: at least two pouch cells (21, 22) stacked on top of one another, each of the pouch cells (21, 22) being enclosed in a metal foil (paragraphs 0004-0005, 0010, 0014-0030, 0045). Jang et al. do not specifically disclose the method comprising: measuring the capacitor capacitance of the at least two pouch cells via a capacitance measuring circuit electronically connected to the metal foils; filtering out a change in the capacitor capacitance induced by impact of vibration via a filter circuit; and interrupting a current draw from the rechargeable battery pack when a value of the capacitor capacitance changes by a predefined threshold value.
Ghantous et al. disclose in Figures 5, 6C and 6D, a battery cell, including a copper film/foil on the external surface (paragraph 0083), and inductive coils or capacitive plates configured relative to the surface of the battery to acquire data (measuring), through the coils/plates and electronic circuitry, the change in inductive/capacitive coupling between one or more coils/plates and the surface of the battery (paragraph 0080). Ghantous et al. disclose filtering out a change in the capacitor capacitance induced by impact of vibration via a filter circuit, called a system (10); and interrupting a current draw from the rechargeable battery pack when a value of the capacitor capacitance changes by a predefined threshold value (paragraphs 0069-0080). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method for measuring the swelling of a pouch cell of a rechargeable battery pack of Jang et al. to include measuring the capacitor capacitance of the at least two pouch cells via a capacitance measuring circuit electronically connected to the metal foils; filtering out a change in the capacitor capacitance induced by impact of vibration via a filter circuit; and interrupting a current draw from the rechargeable battery pack when a value of the capacitor capacitance changes by a predefined threshold value, because Ghantous et al. teach that this method is excellent for measuring the displacement of the surface of the battery, and consequently, swelling (paragraph 0080).
With regard to Claim 31, Ghantous et al. disclose wherein the capacitor capacitance is monitored continuously (paragraphs 0069-0080).
With regard to Claim 32, Ghantous et al. disclose wherein the capacitor capacitance is monitored discontinuously (paragraphs 0069-0080).
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed November 4, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 12-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (EP 3121870 A1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ghantous et al. (US 2016/0116548 A1).
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights